Altruism

It seems I've been wrong all along about altruism. Apparently it exists in the posterior superior temporal cortex.

So, that's sorted then...

Bring it on...

Both Murph and James have called me an atheist recently. I suppose in some respects I am. However, I'm uncomfortable with this moniker as it seems that I'm being defined by what I'm not, as opposed by what I am.

Yes, I don't believe in the existence of an overseeing god, and neither do I believe that there's a natural, moral order to our universe. However I do feel, like Frankl, that our place in the universe has to be rooted in some meaning. Otherwise we'll end up flaying about like fish out of water.

Which I'll admit is fundamentally confused.

What bothers me most about atheism and existentialism, if you choose to link the two together (and yes, I know of Kierkegaard), is the reductive argument that meaning can only be created provisionally from the point of view of the individual. We must sit, observing the world as if it's absurd and make sense of it from our own, individualistic standpoint. Ultimately then, everything becomes reduced to a selfish, Freudian pursuit of self gratification?

Given that I've struggled recently with concepts such as altruism and interdependence, I'm pretty confident that I'm not some hard arsed individualist. Can I follow existentialism to its natural conclusion then? Probably not.

So, there's an obvious flaw in my thinking. Some piece missing in my jigsaw if you like. Is it God? Unlikely, but possible, of course.

To be honest I've always coveted the beliefs of the religious. After all, their dogmas do provide well for those of a philosophical bent. I've tried so hard in the past to believe in the concept of god. It could hold the answers to many of my deeper questions.

Perhaps I'm so small minded that I just don't get it. Or am I at the "point between being under enlightened and being enlightened" and about to experience an "instantaneous moment of epiphany"?

Convince me then, go on, I dare you...

(UN) selfish altruism?

The other day I struggled with the concept of altruism and tried to define it in its purest sense - that of an "unselfish concern for the welfare of others".

I came to my personal conclusion that pure altruism cannot exist. I also came to the conclusion that it doesn't really matter wether it exists or not. As long as we act in ways that have the net effect of benefiting others, whilst at the same time benefitting ourselves, we have a win win outcome that is as good as true altruism.

This debate with myself was provoked by listening to 'In our time' - one of my favoured BBC radio 4 programmes.

I dropped in on the shows website where listeners post their comments and came accross two that caught my attention. The first, by Jon Pasfield pretty much reflects my sentiments, albeit in a much more consise and considered way. The second post, by Nick Inman presents an alternative, somewhat more 'spiritual' view of altruism. Like Nick's post it's well considered and thought provoking but presents an opposing view to my ideas;

Jon Pasfield

I am no expert, but the answer to the whole altruism question seems blindingly obvious. Pretty well all self-mobile organisms have to have a naturally selected instinctive strategy of living in groups to defend themselves and eat. Consider sardines at one end, albatrosses at the other end and humans somewhere in the middle. In most species maximum efficiency is obtained by individuals co-operating with others in addition to their own direct progeny. As individuals they also have to have a naturally selected instinctive strategy for maximising their individual reproduction. These two instincts are bound to conflict in many situations, and the most successful organisms are those which can manage this conflict in the best way. Sometimes one instinct will prevail, sometimes another. In order to do the co-operating bit well, the organism needs to be driven to join groups and help these groups work efficiently. The other members likewise. So they all have to help each other. Some additional points: In many situations this will require the group to band together to fight other groups of the same species. Instincts are pretty blunt instruments, (consider mothers who care extensively for medically doomed children to the detriment of their healthier children). So don't expect every case to look sensible. Inherited instincts are as variable as other inherited features, such as height, so don't expect all individuals to follow the same balance of stategies. Human instincts have evolved over millions of years, so don't expect them all to be appropriate for recent environmental and sociological developments, though many seem to be so. Humans developed the ability to think and reason and an instinct to do so. So a lot of ideas and culture have grown up on the basis of instinct and the observed situations met. These ideas continue from person to person as that is generally more efficient than each person thinking up their ideas from scratch.

An alternative, (perhaps a little fuzzy) view;

Nick Inman

This programme, unfortunately, missed its own point: “how can evolutionary biology explain altruism?” (Note the loaded “how”.) The disussion seemed to accept altruism at its zoological definition – an act by one animal that benefits another – while playing down the vital qualifier: “at its own expense”. The first dictionary definition of altruism is: “the principle or practice of unselfish (or disinterested) concern for the welfare of others”. This throws three unscientific words into the debate which would have been worth a few minutes thought if only to dismiss them. Altruism is not merely “being nice to each other” as if we were zebras nudging each other towards the juiciest bits of grass. But even if we accept this definition, Richard Dawkins’s genetically-coded “rule of thumb” advising us to be “nice” to each other because, as members of a tribe, we expect reciprocity doesn’t work in practice. Look at the average rural working village (not the commuter villages around Oxford though), which is not that far removed from the tribal settlements on the plains of Africa where our DNA was perfected, is seething with rivalries, sometimes between members of the same family who are willing to go their graves before they talk to let alone do a favour to their neighbours. Altruism does not mean giving to others out of the obligation to clan ties or for any gain, perceptible or imperceptible including the expectation of a pat on the back or the assuaging of a sense of shame or guilt. It is, in Neo-Darwinian terms, doing something which has a tangible cost to you (and might even risk your life) for no obvious benefit. An extreme example would be the harbouring of Jews by gentiles in areas of Nazi occupation during the Second World War. Such people had nothing to gain and much to lose - they risked extinguishing their own gene lines for helping someone belonging to another, tight-knit clan. Another, perhaps seemingly perverse, instance is the young suicide bomber – who is acting for the greatest good according to his own criteria. He voluntarily obliterates his own biological code (and that of others who are not in direct competition with him) for no obvious personal gain unless you believe his motivation is purely egotistical: to get to paradise and be surrounded by virgins. I suspect the answer to altruism lies elsewhere than DNA telling us - after millennia of cost-benefit analysis – that it is safer to give strangers a leg up rather than steal their wallets. And all the stuff about epigenetics, mummy fixation (the psychoanalytic solution to the mystery), mathermatical game theory et al just
seem like so much intellectual floundering. None of these approaches end up explaining spontaneous, procreation-threatening acts of human solidarity.

I'd like to spend a little time clarifying why I don't agree with Nick, so bear with me. I'll get round to it soon enough...

Perhaps, when I get the nerve I'll post these thoughts to the In Our Time comments page, but for the moment I'll stand on the shoulders of these giants, like the coward I am :-).

Selfish Altruism?

I feel quite ambivalent about altruism. On the one hand I find it the most attractive facet of the human race. But on the other hand I can't reconcile the fact that 'true' altruism simply cannot exist.

I've labelled two posts so far in this blog with 'altruism'; Ubuntu and Google Image Labeller. But when I think back, perhaps the word altruistic is an inaccurate description for what people are doing with free and open source software etc. Lets say I create a new computer program that people love. I give it away for free under the GNU. Is this a truly altruistic action? Most probably not as I'm likely to get a lot of publicity and accolades from others, and a possible job offer from Microsoft.

A definition for the word is "Altruism is unselfish concern for the welfare of others. It is a traditional virtue in many cultures, and central to many religious traditions."

Now, I'm no Professor of Philosophy, neither am I particularly well read in this area. But it strikes me that it's even more difficult to be truly altruistic if you're religious. Particularly if you have an omnipotent god who watches and ultimately judges your actions in life. So, if you selflessly help some one and you're religious I guess this should be called 'duty' as opposed to true altruism?

What lifts my spirits, is that I don't think it really matters. As long as the human race continues to share and collaborates in ways that look altruistic, but in truth are not, we're still in net gain. So I think I'll continue to misuse the word.

For a much more insightful and knowledgeable debate about this check out this mornings 'In our time' (Radio 4 programme). I'm not sure how long the podcast will be available. So, apologies in advance for a dead link.

Meaning through ESP

Google Image Labeler, or the ESP game in it's original incarnation is the brainchild of Luis von Ahn, currently an assistant professor in the Computer Science Department at Carnegie Mellon University.

The premise of the game is simple, but its implications are huge in my view. Put simply, these two sites harness the power of 'human computation' to give context and meaning to every single image on the internet today.

The rules are simple; you are paired with someone else on the internet, you don't know who this person is. You both get presented with the same image. Each of you submits words to describe the picture and you score points when you get a match with each other. In doing so, each of you generate numerous words to describe each image. Google can then use these words to enhance their image searching for you.

Computers are notoriously bad at understanding images. They're pretty poor at understanding anything subtle about the human condition to be honest. Currently it's almost impossible for a computer to understand context or meaning of information. They're good at Boolean logic; yes / no, true /false or 1 / 0, but ask a computer what does "Toast the bride" mean, it will have no clue. Perhaps it will suggest roasting the poor girl over a spit.

So, computers struggle to understand meaning in human life? Hmn, maybe we're not so different after all. I know that most of us can mostly understand meaning and metaphor in our day to day lives but so many of us struggle with the more metaphysical questions of meaning like "why am I here?" and "why?" and "Is there a God?".

Typically, my (western) culture tends to value the individualistic notions of the human condition. Just take the recent case of drug abusers suing the prisons authority because of their inhumane treatment in enforcing them to withdraw from opiates. Now, I don't want to get all Daily Mail on your ass here but surely the rights of the community that we live in supersede the rights of these individuals to continue methadone treatments for extended lengths of time whilst in prison?

So, they have won out of court settlements totalling some £750,000. Fine. But this money is due, in my view to the people that they will have inevitably abused and stolen from to feed their addiction in the first place.

My point is this; Meaning, be it that of a photograph, or that of the lives that we live can only be understood from the point of view of others. In my humble opinion, most of us (and I consider myself to be amongst them) are far too focusedon our own, individual livesand experiences to truly understand the meaning of our lives, and thus misunderstand what we often seek; spiritual awareness.

Google Image Labeler & The ESP Game are a nice metaphor for this I think. That, and they're great fun to play...which is nice; it does lift my spirits.

These projects harness the collective power of people and their natural urge to work together. Yes, I do feel a little manipulated in that I'm doing Google's work for them. But in doing so I'm helping humanity in my own minusculeway, one image at a time.

Mind you, I worry about wordgirl (who's constantly at the top of the score board by a mile). She must play the game constantly. I hope she's OK.

Here's a lecture that Luis von Ahn gave shortly before Google created the image labeler project. Funny that, isn't it :-)

Ubuntu

Ubuntu amazes me. I have it running on my home PC. It's easy to install and use. It comes packed with features and software right out of the box and is free, yes COMPLETELY FREE! For those of you who haven't heard of Ubuntu, Linux or Open Source Software then I encourage you strongly to look into them.

My non technical friends often look blankly at me when I tell them I'm running a linux system at home. It seems to me that for most people computing is synonymous with Microsoft windows. The fact that all of the things that you can do with paid for software (Like windows & office etc) you can also do for free with software written by the open source community.

The altruism that brings people together to create tools like Ubuntu and then to give them away free really lifts my spirits.

More and more people are using the power of the Internet to collaborate, share and generally help their fellow man. I'll be posting many more examples of this generosity I come across daily on the Internet.